Ruling Supports Limited Use of Bilingual Method

A federal court ruled last week that the Berkeley, Calif., school
district offers a "sound educational program" for
limited-English-proficient pupils even though it does not rely heavily
on native-language instruction by certified bilingual teachers.

Those supporting the district said last week that the ruling in
Theresa P. v. Berkeley Unified School District marks the first time a
court has expressly stated that methods stressing the use of English
can be as effective in teaching l.e.p. pupils as native-language
instruction.

"After reviewing the evidence presented in this case, this Court
concludes that the plaintiffs have not met their burden to show that
the [Berkeley school district's] program is not pedagogically sound,"
U.S. District Judge D. Lowell Jensen of San Francisco said in the Feb.
14 ruling.

"In fact," the judge said, "the evidence shows that the educational
theories upon which [the] programs are grounded are manifestly as sound
as any theory identified by plaintiffs."

The case sets an important precedent nationally because "all of the
cases to date have been predicated on the assumption that bilingual
education is the most effective approach," said Celia M. Ruiz, a lawyer
representing the school district.

The ruling defies the convention that "you only offer another method
when you can't offer bilingual education," Ms. Ruiz said.

But Peter Roos, a lawyer for the advocacy group that filed the 1987
suit on behalf of 16 l.e.p. students, said last week that casting the
ruling as a referendum on "bilingual education versus another method"
would be a "misstatement" of the case.

Mr. Roos, who indicated that the plaintiffs may appeal the ruling,
maintained that they had not set out to prove the efficacy of bilingual
education, but to "challenge to the adequacy of the district's
alternative programs."

Credentials at Issue

About 571 students--or seven percent of the Berkeley district's
total student body--are limited-English speakers. They represent 38
different language groups and are enrolled in 16 different schools.

The district's "language-remediation program" includes a
native-language program for Spanish speaking elementary-school students
and a cultural and language program with a native-language component
for Mandarin- and Cantonese-speaking students in kindergarten through
3rd grade.

But the majority of students are taught in integrated classrooms by
teachers trained in English-as-a-second-language and "sheltered
English" approaches. Tutors with some bilingual skills are provided for
l.e.p. students who need additional support.

Ms. Ruiz said the district, which she termed "at the forefront of
bilingual education" since 1962, has placed more emphasis on English
instruction in recent years because "children don't come out of these
programs as competent in English and academic areas."

The Multicultural Education Training and Advocacy Project charged in
Theresa P. that the district's efforts were inadequate to overcome the
language barriers facing l.e.p. pupils and that they violated federal
laws.

But Mr. Jensen said plaintiffs failed to establish a violation of
either the Equal Educational Opportunities Act or Title VI of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, which bars discrimination based on race, color, or
national origin in federally funded programs.

The judge also disputed what he said was a "major assumption" by the
plaintiffs--that "it is necessary to hold language-specific
credentials" to offer adequate services to l.e.p. pupils.

Experts testifying for the plaintiffs had argued that the district
should hire teachers and tutors with bilingual credentials or advanced
degrees.

"The record does not support this assumption but rather tends to
show an alternative assumption," Judge Jensen said, "that good teachers
are good teachers no matter what the educational challenge may be."

"We were able to present evidence that showed there was no
difference in the achievement of students in classrooms with teachers
that held the credential and didn't hold the credential," Ms. Ruiz
said.

The judge also noted that prospective teachers and tutors are
required to enroll in training sessions and to demonstrate "substantial
progress" toward completing their credentials.

In light of Berkeley's limited financial resources, he added, "it is
highly unlikely that [the district] could fill all necessary positions
with fully credentialed teachers" or teach students in all the
languages represented.

"Any review of the actual complement of teachers and the support
provided them must be done in light of the resources actually
available,'' he said, concluding that the district committed
"significant" funds to language remediation despite a brush with near
bankruptcy in 1986.

Judge Jensen also rejected the plaintiffs' charge that the district
used inadequate procedures to identify l.e.p. students and to ensure
their readiness to exit bilingual classrooms.

Thomas C. Olson, public-affairs di8rector of U.S. English, said last
week that the ruling could set the tone for court battles in other
states that, like California, have passed amendments to their
consititutions declaring English the official language.

Influential Victory?

He called the ruling "a significant and important victory for the
whole area of reforming bilingual education," which has been a chief
target of the official-English movement.

Evidence "subtantiated by the court" in the case, Mr. Olson
asserted, "is part of a growing realization that native-language
instruction is not really what it is promoted to be: the end-all of all
approaches to teaching l.e.p. children."

Ms. Ruiz added that the ruling could affect school districts
throughout California, which has been operating without a
bilingual-education statute since Gov. George Deukmejian vetoed a bill
to extend a law that was allowed to "sunset" in 1987.

The state education department has maintained, however, that
districts still have an obligation to fulfill the "intended purposes"
of both federal law and the state program, whose funding and
eligibility criteria remain intact.

But the department's position that districts are still obligated to
provide native-language instruction when needed is a "subject of
controversy" that could be challenged in the wake of the recent ruling,
Ms. Ruiz said.

Joseph R. Sympkowick, the department's chief counsel, said the
ruling would have no effect on "our interpretation of state law."

He added that neither the new ruling nor recent U.S. Supreme Court
precedents preclude states from regulating districts beyond the
"minimum requirements of federal law."

While federal civil-rights laws never mandated "a per se right to
bilingual education," Mr. Roos said, "it is still good conservative
advice to school districts throughout the country" that they have an
obligation to provide appropriate programs for l.e.p. students.

"To the extent they can do so," he said, "a bilingual program
provides the greatest legal shield for them."

Vol. 08, Issue 22

Notice: We recently upgraded our comments. (Learn more here.) If you are logged in as a subscriber or registered user and already have a Display Name on edweek.org, you can post comments. If you do not already have a Display Name, please create one here.

Ground Rules for Posting
We encourage lively debate, but please be respectful of others. Profanity and personal attacks are prohibited. By commenting, you are agreeing to abide by our user agreement.
All comments are public.